To amend section 5301.072 of the Revised Code to prohibit certain restrictions on the display of political yard signs.
HB16 would amend Ohio Revised Code section 5301.072 to expand the list of property displays that homeowners associations, neighborhood associations, and similar private governing documents may not prohibit. The bill keeps existing protections for flags and service flags, and adds a new protection for political yard signs. Under the bill, covenants, rules, bylaws, and similar restrictions could not be used to ban political yard signs outright, though they could still impose reasonable limits on timing, location, materials, size, number, and manner of placement.
The bill also sets specific minimum protections for political signs. Associations could not prohibit political yard signs during the 30 days before the next election in the area, and they could not limit signs to less than 12 inches in height or 18 inches in width. The bill preserves exceptions for signs that violate other laws, including criminal statutes, civil rights law, local ordinances, or gubernatorial proclamations, and it declares any conflicting private restriction unenforceable as against public policy.
HB16 would change the enforceability of private deed restrictions and association rules in Ohio by limiting the ability of homeowners associations and similar entities to regulate political yard signs. It would amend section 5301.072 of the Revised Code, which already protects certain flag displays, to add political signage as a protected form of expression on private property. The bill would affect property owners, HOAs, neighborhood associations, civic associations, and other private governing bodies by narrowing the scope of restrictions they may impose on yard signs during election periods.
The bill appears to be framed as a property-rights and free-expression measure, with no recorded committee testimony or votes in the available materials to indicate formal opposition or support. Based on the text alone, the proposal is likely to be viewed favorably by supporters of political speech protections and by property owners who want to display campaign signs. Because the bill was only introduced and had not advanced in the available record, there is no documented legislative consensus or final sentiment from votes.
The main point of contention is the balance between political expression and private community regulation. Supporters would likely favor the bill’s limits on HOA and deed-based restrictions, especially the ban on prohibiting signs in the 30 days before an election and the minimum sign-size protections. Opponents, if any, would likely argue that the bill intrudes on private contractual rules and neighborhood aesthetic standards by limiting how associations can regulate signage. The bill still allows some reasonable restrictions, but the exact scope of what counts as “reasonable” could also be a source of dispute.